Infliximab, adalimumab and golimumab for treating moderately to severely erely active ulcerative colitis after the failure of conventional therapy Technology appraisal guidance Published: 25 February 2015 nice.org.uk/guidance/ta329 NICE 2017. All rights reserved. Subject to Notice of rights (https://www.nice.org.uk/terms-and-conditions#notice-ofrights).
Your responsibility The recommendations in this guidance represent the view of NICE, arrived at after careful consideration of the evidence available. When exercising their judgement, health professionals are expected to take this guidance fully into account, alongside the individual needs, preferences and values of their patients. The application of the recommendations in this guidance are at the discretion of health professionals and their individual patients and do not override the responsibility of healthcare professionals to make decisions appropriate to the circumstances of the individual patient, in consultation with the patient and/or their carer or guardian. Commissioners and/or providers have a responsibility to provide the funding required to enable the guidance to be applied when individual health professionals and their patients wish to use it, in accordance with the NHS Constitution. They should do so in light of their duties to have due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, to advance equality of opportunity and to reduce health inequalities. Commissioners and providers have a responsibility to promote an environmentally sustainable health and care system and should assess and reduce the environmental impact of implementing NICE recommendations wherever possible. Page 2 of
Contents 1 Guidance... 4 2 Clinical need and practice... 6 3 The technologies... 8 Adalimumab... 8 Golimumab... 9 Infliximab... 9 4 Evidence and interpretation... 11 Clinical effectiveness... 11 Cost effectiveness... 22 Consideration of the evidence... 32 Clinical effectiveness... 38 Cost effectiveness... 40 Summary of Appraisal Committee's key conclusions... 48 5 Implementation... 58 6 Review of guidance... 59 7 Appraisal Committee members, guideline representatives and NICE project team... 60 Appraisal Committee members... 60 NICE project team... 62 8 Sources of evidence considered by the Committee... 63 About this guidance... 66 Page 3 of
This guidance replaces TA140, TA262 and ESNM6. 1 Guidance 1.1 Infliximab, adalimumab and golimumab are recommended, within their marketing authorisations, as options for treating moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis in adults whose disease has responded inadequately to conventional therapy including corticosteroids and mercaptopurine or azathioprine, or who cannot tolerate, or have medical contraindications for, such therapies. Golimumab is recommended only if the company provides the 100 mg dose of golimumab at the same cost as the 50 mg dose, as agreed in the patient access scheme. 1.2 The choice of treatment between infliximab, adalimumab or golimumab should be made on an individual basis after discussion between the responsible clinician and the patient about the advantages and disadvantages of the treatments available. This should take into consideration therapeutic need and whether or not the patient is likely to adhere to treatment. If more than 1 treatment is suitable, the least expensive should be chosen (taking into account administration costs, dosage and price per dose). 1.3 Infliximab is recommended, within its marketing authorisation, as an option for treating severely active ulcerative colitis in children and young people aged 6 17 years whose disease has responded inadequately to conventional therapy including corticosteroids and mercaptopurine or azathioprine, or who cannot tolerate, or have medical contraindications for, such therapies. 1.4 Infliximab, adalimumab or golimumab should be given as a planned course of treatment until treatment fails (including the need for surgery) or until 12 months after starting treatment, whichever is shorter. Specialists should then discuss the risks and benefits of continued treatment with the patient, and their parent or carer if appropriate: Page 4 of
They should continue treatment only if there is clear evidence of response as determined by clinical symptoms, biological markers and investigation, including endoscopy if necessary. People who continue treatment should be reassessed at least every 12 months to determine whether ongoing treatment is still clinically appropriate. They should consider a trial withdrawal from treatment for all patients who are in stable clinical remission. People whose disease relapses after treatment is stopped should have the option to start treatment again. Page 5 of
2 Clinical need and practice 2.1 Ulcerative colitis is a chronic condition in which inflammation develops in the large intestine. Its exact cause is unknown although hereditary, infectious and immunological factors have been proposed as possible causes. Symptoms vary according to the extent and severity of the disease and may include bloody diarrhoea, abdominal pain, weight loss, fatigue, anaemia and an urgent need to defaecate. Some patients may also have extra-intestinal manifestations involving joints, eyes, skin and liver. Symptoms can flare up then disappear for months or even years, but approximately 50% of patients with ulcerative colitis will relapse at least once a year. Ulcerative colitis can cause complications such as primary sclerosing cholangitis (inflamed and damaged bile ducts), bowel cancer, osteoporosis and toxic megacolon (swelling of the colon caused by trapped gases, which can be life-threatening). 2.2 Ulcerative colitis can develop at any age but the peak incidence is between 15 and 25 years of age with a second, smaller peak between 55 and 65 years. It is estimated that approximately 128,400 people in England have ulcerative colitis. Around 80% of the people affected have mild or moderate disease and 20% have severe disease. 2.3 The modified Truelove and Witts severity index is widely used to classify the severity of ulcerative colitis. It defines mild ulcerative colitis as fewer than 4 bowel movements daily; moderate ulcerative colitis as more than 4 daily bowel movements but the patient is not systemically ill; and severe ulcerative colitis as more than 6 bowel movements daily and the patient is also systemically ill (as shown by tachycardia, fever, anaemia or a raised erythrocyte sedimentation rate). Severe ulcerative colitis, as defined by the Truelove and Witts severity index, is potentially life threatening and normally requires hospitalisation and emergency care. This is aligned with the UK definition of 'acute severe ulcerative colitis'. NICE's guideline on ulcerative colitis equates 'subacute ulcerative colitis' to moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis, which would normally be managed in an outpatient setting and does not require hospitalisation or the consideration of urgent surgical intervention. This appraisal includes moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis but not acute severe ulcerative colitis (that is, severe ulcerative colitis according to the Truelove and Witts severity index). Recommendations for treating acute severe ulcerative colitis can be found in NICE's guideline on managing ulcerative colitis Page 6 of
and NICE's technology appraisal guidance on infliximab for acute exacerbations of ulcerative colitis. 2.4 Treatment for ulcerative colitis aims to relieve symptoms during a flare-up and then to maintain remission. The management of moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis involves treatment with oral or topical aminosalicylates (sulfasalazine, mesalazine, balsalazide or olsalazine), or with corticosteroids if aminosalicylates are contraindicated or not tolerated. Oral corticosteroids or drugs that affect the immune response can also be added if the disease does not respond to aminosalicylates. Colectomy is a treatment option if symptoms are inadequately controlled or if the patient has a poor quality of life on conventional therapy. Page 7 of
3 The technologies 3.1 Adalimumab (Humira, AbbVie), golimumab (Simponi, Merck Sharp & Dohme) and infliximab (Remicade, Merck Sharp & Dohme; Inflectra, Hospira; Remsima, Celltrion) are monoclonal antibodies that inhibit the pro-inflammatory cytokine, TNF-alpha. All 3 have the same marketing authorisation in the UK for the 'treatment of moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis in adult patients who have had an inadequate response to conventional therapy including corticosteroids and mercaptopurine or azathioprine, or who are intolerant to or have medical contraindications for such therapies'. Infliximab is also indicated for the 'treatment of severely active ulcerative colitis, in children and adolescents aged 6 to 17 years, who have had an inadequate response to conventional therapy including corticosteroids and mercaptopurine or azathioprine, or who are intolerant to or have medical contraindications for such therapies'. Adalimumab 3.2 Adalimumab is administered by subcutaneous injection. The recommended induction dose regimen is 160 mg at week 0 and 80 mg at week 2. After induction treatment, the recommended dose is 40 mg every other week. The summary of product characteristics recommends that therapy should be stopped in patients whose disease failed to respond to adalimumab within 2 to 8 weeks after starting treatment. 3.3 The summary of product characteristics includes the following adverse reactions for adalimumab: infections (such as nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection and sinusitis), injection site reactions (including erythema, itching, haemorrhage, pain or swelling), headache, musculoskeletal pain, hepatitis B reactivation, various malignancies and serious haematological, neurological and autoimmune reactions. For full details of adverse reactions and contraindications, see the summary of product characteristics. 3.4 The price of adalimumab is 352.14 for a pre-filled 40 mg pen or syringe, or a 40 mg/0.8 ml vial (excluding VAT; 'British National Formulary' [BNF] edition ). Assuming the recommended dosage for adalimumab is followed (see section 3.2), the cost of adalimumab induction therapy is 2113; the cost of Page 8 of
4 weeks of adalimumab maintenance therapy is 704. Costs may vary in different settings because of negotiated procurement discounts. Golimumab 3.5 Golimumab is administered by subcutaneous injection. The dose regimen of golimumab depends on the patient's body weight. For patients with a body weight of less than 80 kg, golimumab is licensed at an initial dose of 200 mg, followed by 100 mg at week 2, and then 50 mg every 4 weeks. For patients with a body weight of 80 kg or more, it is licensed at an initial dose of 200 mg, followed by 100 mg at week 2, then 100 mg every 4 weeks. The summary of product characteristics recommends that continued golimumab therapy should be reconsidered in patients who do not benefit within 12 14 weeks after starting treatment (that is, after 4 doses). 3.6 The summary of product characteristics includes the following adverse reactions for golimumab: upper respiratory tract infection and other serious infections (including sepsis, pneumonia, tuberculosis, and invasive fungal and opportunistic infections), demyelinating disorders, lymphoma, hepatitis B reactivation, congestive heart failure, autoimmune processes (lupus-like syndrome) and haematologic reactions. For full details of adverse reactions and contraindications, see the summary of product characteristics. 3.7 The price of golimumab is 762.97 for a pre-filled 50 mg pen or syringe and 1525.94 for a 100 mg pre-filled pen (excluding VAT; BNF edition ). Merck Sharp & Dohme has agreed a patient access scheme with the Department of Health. This will make the 100 mg dose of golimumab available to the NHS at the same cost as the 50 mg dose. The Department of Health considered that this patient access scheme does not constitute an excessive administrative burden on the NHS. Including the patient access scheme and assuming that the recommended dosage for golimumab is followed (see section 3.5), the cost of golimumab induction therapy is 2289; the cost of 4 weeks of golimumab maintenance therapy is 763. Infliximab 3.8 Infliximab is administered by intravenous infusion. For both the adult and paediatric populations, the recommended dose of infliximab is 5 mg/kg at Page 9 of
weeks 0, 2 and 6, then at every 8 weeks. The summary of product characteristics recommends that continued infliximab therapy should be carefully reconsidered in adults who do not benefit within the first 14 weeks of treatment. It also states that available data do not support further infliximab therapy in children and young people aged 6 to 17 years whose disease does not respond within the first 8 weeks of treatment. 3.9 The summary of product characteristics includes the following adverse reactions for infliximab: upper respiratory tract infection, hepatitis B reactivation, congestive heart failure, serious infections (including sepsis, opportunistic infections and tuberculosis), serum sickness (delayed hypersensitivity reactions), haematologic reactions, systemic lupus erythematosus/lupus-like syndrome, demyelinating disorders, hepatobiliary events, lymphoma, hepatosplenic T-cell lymphoma, and serious infusion reactions. For full details of adverse reactions and contraindications, see the summary of product characteristics. 3.10 The price of infliximab is 419.62 for a 100 mg vial containing powder for reconstitution (excluding VAT; BNF edition ). Assuming the patient weighs 77 kg and the recommended dose for infliximab is followed (see section 3.8), the cost of infliximab induction therapy is 5035; the cost of 4 weeks of infliximab maintenance therapy is 839. Costs may vary in different settings because of negotiated procurement discounts. 3.11 Biosimilar versions of infliximab (Inflectra, Hospira; Remsima, Celltrion) have a marketing authorisation in the UK for the same indications. The therapeutic indications, dosage and method of administration for Remsima and Inflectra are identical to those for the reference product (Remicade). Adverse reactions are also similar. Neither Inflectra nor Remsima had an approved list price in the UK at the time of the appraisal. Page 10 of
4 Evidence and interpretation The Appraisal Committee (section 7) considered evidence from a number of sources (section 8). Clinical effectiveness Adult population 4.1 The Assessment Group's systematic review identified 9 relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in adults: ULTRA1, ULTRA2 and Suzuki et al. for adalimumab; PURSUIT-SC and PURSUIT-Maintenance for golimumab; and ACT1, ACT2, Probert et al. and UC-SUCCESS for infliximab. All the RCTs were multicentre, double-blind trials that were conducted worldwide (except the study by Suzuki et al., which was conducted in Japan and the study by Probert et al., which was conducted in the UK and Germany). Apart from UC-SUCCESS, which compared infliximab with azathioprine or with infliximab plus azathioprine, all the trials compared adalimumab, golimumab or infliximab with placebo. Most trials included licensed and unlicensed dosages of the treatment; only the results for the licensed dosages are presented here. Of the 9 trials identified by the Assessment Group, 4 followed up patients in open-label extension studies (ULTRA1, ULTRA2, ACT1 and ACT2). Because no head-to-head evidence was available from RCTs for adalimumab, golimumab or infliximab, the Assessment Group performed a network meta-analysis using the placebo-controlled RCTs for each treatment (that is, an analysis combining direct and indirect evidence for particular pairwise comparisons). 4.2 All the RCTs except the study by Probert et al. used the Mayo score to assess the eligibility of patients. The Mayo score assesses 4 outcomes (stool frequency, rectal bleeding, endoscopic findings and physician's global assessment) on a scale of 0 12, with the score increasing with disease severity. In all these trials patients were eligible if they had a Mayo score of 6 12 with disease identified by endoscopic examination, which represents moderate to severe disease. Probert et al. used instead the ulcerative colitis symptom score, but the Assessment Group considered this to be equivalent to the Mayo score. Patients had to have taken conventional therapies before. These therapies varied across the trials but generally included corticosteroids, aminosalicylates and/or a drug that affects the immune response. Only in ULTRA2 were patients allowed to have had a TNF-alpha inhibitor before (40% of patients had been treated with Page 11 of
one). Patients were excluded from the trials if they had any of the following: ulcerative proctitis (ulcerative colitis that is limited to the rectum), a history of or a risk of having bowel surgery, diseases of the central nervous system, previous serious infection or a deficient immune system, previous cancer, or dysplasia (signs of abnormal growth of cells). 4.3 The average age of patients in the included RCTs ranged from 37 to 42.5 years; 41 to 73% were male and the average duration of disease was 4.9 to 8.5 years. Mayo scores at baseline were consistent across the trials and ranged from 8.1 to 8.9. The Assessment Group noted that, even though TNF-alpha inhibitors are licensed for patients whose disease has had an inadequate response to, or who are intolerant to or have medical contraindications for, such therapies, UC-SUCCESS included patients if they had never had azathioprine or not had it within the 3 months preceding randomisation. As a result, 90% of the patients enrolled in the trial had not had azathioprine before. In addition, Suzuki et al. included Japanese patients aged 15 years or older. However, the Assessment Group considered it appropriate to use this trial because the average age of patients was over 40 years. 4.4 The primary end point in all the RCTs was clinical response or remission. Of the 9 trials in adults, 8 trials assessed how well the treatment induced clinical response or remission, and 6 trials assessed how well the treatment maintained it (5 trials assessed both). To assess clinical response or remission, all trials except the study by Probert et al. used the Mayo score, which the Assessment Group considered to be applied consistently in the individual trials. Probert et al. used the ulcerative colitis symptom score. In the trials that used the Mayo score, clinical response was generally defined as: a decrease in Mayo score from baseline of at least 3 points and at least 30%, and a decrease in the rectal bleeding sub-score from baseline of at least 1 point, or having an absolute rectal bleeding sub-score of 0 or 1. Similarly, the definition of remission was broadly the same across the RCTs: Mayo score of 2 or less, with no individual sub-score greater than 1. Page 12 of
Adalimumab 4.5 In ULTRA1, 18.5% of patients who were treated with adalimumab 160 mg at week 0 and 80 mg at week 2 (the licensed dose) were in remission at week 8 compared with 9.2% of those who had placebo; a result that was statistically significant (p=0.031). A higher proportion of patients in the adalimumab group had a clinical response (54.6% compared with 44.6%) but the difference was not statistically significant. In ULTRA2, the rate of remission was higher in patients treated with adalimumab than in those treated with placebo both at week 8 (16.5% compared with 9.3%; p=0.019) and at week 52 (17.3% compared with 8.5%; p=0.004). The difference at both time points was statistically significant. Of patients who were in remission at week 8, 8.5% of those having adalimumab and 4.1% of those having placebo remained in remission at week 52 (p=0.047). The open-label extension study ULTRA3 showed that patients generally continued to benefit from adalimumab therapy up to week 60, although 23% did not benefit and stopped treatment. 4.6 The incidence of adverse events was similar with adalimumab or placebo in ULTRA1 (50.2% compared with 48.4%, respectively) and ULTRA2 (82.9% compared with 83.8%). The most frequently reported adverse event in both RCTs was worsening or flare-up of ulcerative colitis (ULTRA1 adalimumab 3.6%, placebo 4.0%; ULTRA2 adalimumab 22.6%, placebo 29.2%). The difference in the incidence of adverse events between the adalimumab and the placebo groups was statistically significant only for iron deficiency anaemia, gastroenteritis, and nasopharyngitis, although the incidence was higher with adalimumab for all adverse events. Most adverse events were mild or moderate in severity. In ULTRA2, more patients randomised to placebo stopped treatment because of an adverse event (13.1%) than did patients randomised to adalimumab (8.9%). 4.7 ULTRA1 and ULTRA2 reported health-related quality of life data for adalimumab measured using the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ) or Short Form-36 (SF-36) IBDQ scores range from 32 (poor health) to 224 (perfect health). In ULTRA1, changes from baseline scores on IBDQ and SF-36 at week 8 were similar in the adalimumab (160 mg at week 0 and 80 mg at week 2) and placebo groups. In ULTRA2, however, changes in IBDQ scores at week 52 were higher with adalimumab than with placebo (27 compared with 19; p<0.05). Page 13 of
4.8 In the study by Suzuki et al., patients were randomised to adalimumab 160 mg at week 0 and 80 mg at week 2 then 40 mg every other week (licensed dose), or adalimumab 80 mg at week 0 then 40 mg every other week (unlicensed dose), or placebo. Results were reported at 8 weeks and 52 weeks, but the 2 adalimumab groups were combined for the analysis at 52 weeks. At week 8, remission rates were similar among treatment groups, but more patients treated with adalimumab 160 mg at week 0 and 80 mg at week 2 (the licensed dose) had a clinical response than did patients treated with placebo (50% compared with 35%; p=0.044). At week 52, more patients having adalimumab maintenance therapy had a clinical response (18% compared with 31%; p=0.021) and remission (7% compared with 23%; p=0.001) than did patients having placebo. 4.9 In response to the appraisal consultation document, the company presented an interim analysis of the INSPIRADA study. This was a multicentre observational study evaluating the impact of adalimumab on the quality of life of patients with ulcerative colitis and on the utilisation of healthcare resources in clinical practice. The primary endpoints were the change in the Short Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (SIBDQ) score at week 26 from baseline, and the change in medical care costs related to ulcerative colitis (apart from the cost of adalimumab). The SIBDQ uses 10 questions to measure the impact of the disease on social, emotional and physical wellbeing. Total scores range from 10 (worst health) to 70 (best health). The company reported that adalimumab was associated with a statistically significant improvement in SIBDQ scores in the interim analysis (18.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] 14.89 to 21.84; p<0.001). Adalimumab also reduced the costs related to ulcerative colitis in the 6 months after starting treatment compared with the 6 months before starting treatment ( 1296, 95% CI 1729 to 863; p<0.001), a difference that was statistically significant. This analysis was not critiqued by the Assessment Group. Golimumab 4.10 PURSUIT-SC was an integrated trial that included a double-blind dose-finding study and a dose confirmation study. In the dose confirmation study, rates of clinical response at week 6 were 51.0% among patients who had golimumab 200 mg followed by golimumab 100 mg (the licensed dose), and 30.3% among those who had placebo, a difference that was statistically significant (p<0.0001). Golimumab treatment was also associated with a statistically significantly Page 14 of
higher rate of remission than placebo (17.8% compared with 6.4%; p<0.0001). Patients who had golimumab (200 mg then 100 mg) reported a greater change in IBDQ scores from baseline to week 6 than did patients having placebo (27.0 compared with 14.8, p<0.0001). 4.11 In PURSUIT-Maintenance patients whose disease had responded to golimumab induction therapy in 2 previous golimumab trials (including PURSUIT-SC) were randomised to golimumab 50 mg, golimumab 100 mg or to placebo. Clinical response was maintained throughout PURSUIT-Maintenance to week 54 in 47.0% of patients who had 50 mg golimumab, 49.7% of patients who had 100 mg golimumab and 31.2% of patients who had placebo (p=0.010 and p<0.001 respectively). The proportion of patients who were in remission at both weeks 30 and 54 was higher in the golimumab 100 mg group (27.8%) and the golimumab 50 mg group (23.2%) than in the placebo group (15.6%; p=0.004 and p=0.122 respectively), although the difference between golimumab 50 mg and placebo was not statistically significant. Because PURSUIT-Maintenance included patients whose disease had responded to golimumab induction therapy in 2 earlier trials, the Assessment Group indicated that the results of PURSUIT-Maintenance may be biased. 4.12 In PURSUIT-Maintenance, the number of adverse events was similar in the golimumab 50 mg and 100 mg groups. However, among patients having golimumab 50 mg, 8.4% had a serious adverse event and 5.2% stopped treatment because of an adverse event, compared with 14.3% and 9.1% respectively for patients having golimumab 100 mg (most patients who stopped treatment did so because their disease got worse). Infliximab 4.13 In both the ACT1 and ACT2 trials, clinical response at week 8 occurred in a higher proportion of patients who were treated with infliximab 5 mg/kg (the licensed dose) than in patients treated with placebo (ACT1 69% compared with 37%, p<0.001; ACT2 65% compared with 29%, p<0.001). Patients who had infliximab were also more likely to have a clinical response at week 30 than patients who had placebo (p 0.002 in both studies). In ACT1, clinical response at week 54 was reported for 46% of patients who had infliximab 5 mg/kg compared with 20% of those who had placebo (p<0.001). A statistically Page 15 of
significant improvement in quality of life was observed in the infliximab group compared with the placebo group. 4.14 In ACT1 and ACT2, similar proportions of patients in the infliximab and placebo groups had an adverse event. However, more adverse events occurred among patients having infliximab in ACT1 than among those having it in ACT2 (87.6% compared with 81.8%). The most common adverse event in ACT1 was worsening of ulcerative colitis (infliximab 19.0%, placebo 33.1%), whereas in ACT2 it was headache (infliximab15.7%, placebo 14.6%). There were more serious adverse events reported by patients having placebo in both RCTs (ACT1 infliximab 21.5%, placebo 25.6%; ACT2 infliximab 10.7%, placebo 19.5%). Stopping treatment because of an adverse event was more common in the placebo group than in the infliximab group in both studies. 4.15 Probert et al. reported remission rates (ulcerative colitis symptom score less than 2) of 39% in the infliximab group and 30% in the placebo group at week 6, a difference of 9% that was not statistically significant (95% CI 19 to 34%; p=0.76). At that time, health-related quality of life measured using IBDQ and EQ-5D improved more with infliximab than with placebo (p-value not reported). In UC-SUCCESS, a greater proportion of patients who had infliximab plus azathioprine were in corticosteroid-free remission at week 16 (39.7%) than patients who had infliximab alone (22.1%; p=0.017) or azathioprine alone (23.7%; p=0.813). The greatest changes in IBDQ and SF-36 scores from baseline were for infliximab plus azathioprine (for both IBDQ and SF 36 score changes, p<0.05 compared with azathioprine alone or with infliximab alone). 4.16 Inflectra and Remsima are biosimilar products to infliximab that were developed as a single product, CT-P13. CT-P13 was compared with Remicade (the reference proprietary product) in 2 RCTs: PLANET-AS: a trial comparing the pharmacokinetics, efficacy and safety of CT-P13 and Remicade in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (n=250). PLANET-RA: a trial comparing the efficacy and safety of CT-P13 and Remicade in patients with rheumatoid arthritis whose disease had an inadequate response to methotrexate (n=606). The objective of these trials was to demonstrate that CT-P13 was similar to the reference product. The European Public Assessment Reports for Inflectra and Page 16 of
Remsima acknowledged that the pharmacokinetics, efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity profiles of CT-P13 were similar to those of Remicade in PLANET-AS and PLANET-RA. Although neither of the trials was for ulcerative colitis, the European Public Assessment Reports state that the overall data comparing CT-P13 with Remicade allow for the extrapolation of the evidence generated by PLANET-AS and PLANET-RA to all other indications of Remicade. Network meta-analysis 4.17 Because no RCTs compared adalimumab, golimumab or infliximab directly with each other, the Assessment Group performed a network meta-analysis using the placebo-controlled RCTs for each intervention. RCTs were eligible for inclusion if they reported data on both clinical response and remission at either an induction (6 to 8 weeks) or maintenance (30 or 52 weeks) time point. The Assessment Group did not include the study by Probert et al. and UC-SUCCESS because the definition of remission in Probert et al. differed from the other trials and most patients in UC-SUCCESS had not had azathioprine before. ULTRA2 was the only trial to include patients who had been treated before with a TNF-alpha inhibitor as well as those who had not. For its base case, the Assessment Group used the data relating only to patients who had not had TNF-alpha inhibitors before. It also excluded the study by Suzuki et al. from the base case because this study was conducted in Japanese patients only. However, the Assessment Group did 3 sensitivity analyses: firstly using data for the overall population in ULTRA2 (patients who had been treated with a TNF-alpha inhibitor before and also those who had not); secondly, including Suzuki et al.; and thirdly, combining these 2 analyses together. 4.18 For the base case and each of the sensitivity analyses, the Assessment Group compared the effects of adalimumab, golimumab, and infliximab with respect to each of the following: induction of clinical response or remission at week 8 maintenance of clinical response or remission at week 32 for patients starting with a clinical response at week 8 maintenance of clinical response or remission at week 32 for patients starting in remission at week 8 Page 17 of
maintenance of clinical response or remission at week 52 for patients starting with a clinical response at week 32 maintenance of clinical response or remission at week 52 for patients starting in remission at week 32. The Assessment Group used between 3 and 5 RCTs to perform the network meta-analysis for each of the listed outcomes, noting mild to moderate heterogeneity between individual study results in all the analyses. For each outcome, the Assessment Group reported: the effect of each treatment compared with placebo and with the other treatments on the probit scale (where negative values indicate that the intervention is more effective than the comparator) together with credible intervals (CrI) the probability of each treatment being ranked the best, second-best, third-best and so on the probability of the disease being active, responding and remitting at the end of therapy (week 8 for induction and week 32 or 52 for maintenance) with each treatment. 4.19 In the Assessment Group's base case, all treatments had a statistically significant favourable effect compared with placebo when assessed for induction therapy. The greatest effect on inducing clinical response or remission was associated with infliximab (effect relative to placebo 0.92, 95% CrI 1.27 to 0.56), which had a 93% probability of being the best treatment for that outcome. The probability of the disease remaining active, responding or remitting after 8 weeks of infliximab therapy was 29%, 35% and 36% respectively. 4.20 For maintenance therapy, the Assessment Group reported the following results: Maintenance of clinical response or remission at week 32 for patients starting with a clinical response at week 8: golimumab 100 mg had the greatest effect compared with placebo, but the effect was not statistically significant ( 0.42, 95% CrI 1.06 to 0.21). The probability of golimumab 100 mg being the best treatment for that outcome was 47%. At the end of the maintenance therapy with golimumab 100 mg, the probability of the disease remaining active, responding or remitting was 37%, 29% and 35% respectively. Page 18 of
Maintenance of clinical response or remission at week 32 for patients starting in remission at week 8: golimumab 50 mg had the greatest effect compared with placebo, but the effect was not statistically significant ( 0. 63, 95% CrI 1.36 to 0.11). The probability of golimumab 50 mg being the best treatment for that outcome was 47%. At the end of the maintenance therapy with golimumab 50 mg, the probability of the disease remaining active, responding or remitting was 18%, 14% and 69% respectively. Maintenance of clinical response or remission at week 52 for patients starting with a clinical response at week 32: infliximab had the greatest effect compared with placebo, but the effect was not statistically significant ( 0.36, 95% CrI 1.33 to 0.62). The probability of infliximab being the best treatment for that outcome was 56%. At the end of the maintenance therapy with infliximab, the probability of the disease remaining active, responding or remitting was 25%, 34% and 41% respectively. Maintenance of clinical response or remission at week 52 for patients starting in remission at week 32: adalimumab had the greatest effect compared with placebo, which was statistically significant ( 1.04, 95% CrI 1.93 to 0.12). The probability of adalimumab being the best treatment for that outcome was 84%. At the end of the maintenance therapy with adalimumab, the probability of the disease remaining active, responding or remitting was 8%, 8% and 83% respectively. 4.21 In all 3 sensitivity analyses, infliximab had the greatest effect on inducing clinical response or remission, as in the base case. The best treatment for each maintenance outcome was also the same as in the base case in all sensitivity analyses. Children and young people 4.22 The Assessment Group identified 1 open-label RCT in children and young people, by Hyams et al., which evaluated infliximab as maintenance therapy. Patients initially had 5 mg/kg infliximab induction therapy at weeks 0, 2 and 6. Patients whose disease responded were then randomised to 1 of 2 infliximab maintenance groups: infliximab 5 mg/kg every 8 weeks (n=22) or infliximab 5 mg/kg every 12 weeks (n=23). Eligible patients were 6 17 years old, had moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis defined as a Mayo score of 6 12 (with disease identified endoscopically), and had been treated before with at least 1 conventional treatment (aminosalicylates, a drug that affects the immune response or corticosteroids). The primary end point was clinical response assessed at week 8 for induction therapy (before randomisation) and Page 19 of
week 54 for maintenance therapy. Remission, a secondary end point, was defined as a Paediatric Ulcerative Colitis Activity Index (PUCAI) score of less than 10 (a PUCAI score of 65 or more reflects severe disease). Infliximab is licensed in children and young people for treating severely active ulcerative colitis only, but Hyams et al. included patients with moderately to severely active disease. Because the Assessment Group did not identify any RCTs comparing infliximab with placebo or with other active treatments in children and young people, it included Hyams et al., despite it being for moderately to severely active disease. 4.23 At week 8, 73.3% (44/60) of patients had a clinical response to infliximab and 40.0% (24/60) were in remission. Of those who had a response, a greater proportion of patients who then had infliximab 5 mg/kg every 8 weeks were in PUCAI remission at week 54 than patients who had infliximab 5 mg/kg every 12 weeks (38.1% compared with 18.2%; p=0.146). In addition, 38.5% and 0.0% of patients who had infliximab every 8 weeks or every 12 weeks, respectively, were in PUCAI remission without the use of corticosteroids at week 54. No health-related quality of life data were available from Hyams et al. 4.24 All patients in the study by Hyams et al. reported having at least 1 adverse event. By week 54, more patients having infliximab every 12 weeks had stopped treatment because of an adverse event than those having infliximab every 8 weeks (6/23 [26.1%] compared with 3/22 [13.6%]). The number of patients who had 1 or more serious adverse event, infections, or reactions at the site of administration was similar in both infliximab groups. Comments from other consultees 4.25 Patient experts indicated that the symptoms of ulcerative colitis (for example, irregular sleeping patterns, pain and fatigue) and the unpredictable pattern of disease flare-ups cause education, employment, personal relationships, and social and family life to be affected. In addition, the frequent and urgent need to go to the toilet affects self-esteem and social functioning, and can cause anxiety about loss of bowel control if left untreated. Patient experts also noted that ulcerative colitis presents at an early age when people are beginning their career and long-term relationships. They indicated that 30% of patients continue to experience flare-ups or chronic symptoms despite conventional therapy, so TNF-alpha inhibitors offer hope to these patients and can help them Page 20 of
resume their normal lives. However, it was noted that access to TNF-alpha inhibitors is currently limited to patients who are able to secure exceptional funding through their clinical commissioning group. This sometimes leaves the patient without adequate treatment until their disease becomes so severe that they may require emergency surgery. 4.26 Comments from professional groups indicated that ulcerative colitis is a challenging condition to treat, particularly in patients with disease that does not respond to conventional therapy who, as a result, have a reduced quality of life and often no treatment options but colectomy and the formation of an ileostomy (that is, the diversion of the small intestine through an opening in the abdomen). Comments indicated that often this surgery is needed for young people, in whom a stoma (the artificial opening made into the abdomen) may have an impact on psychological wellbeing and lifestyle. In addition, young patients, who may not have started a family, often delay or dismiss ileo-anal pouch anastomosis (by which an internal reservoir for stool is surgically created) because this is a surgery in the pelvis that can affect fertility. For these patients, TNF-alpha-inhibitor therapy is a valuable option because it can avoid surgery when the patient is in education, has not formed permanent relationships or a family, or risks losing employment because of their illness. Comments noted, however, that it is difficult to extrapolate from clinical trials, with rigid inclusion criteria, to assess the impact of TNF-alpha inhibitors on patients' quality of life compared with surgery. 4.27 Professional groups highlighted that the ACT1 and ACT2 trials showed that infliximab resulted in a statistically significant reduction in the rate of colectomy at week 54 compared with placebo (10% and 17% of patients in the infliximab and placebo groups, respectively, had colectomy). It was also noted that long-term follow-up data from ACT1 and ACT2 demonstrated a persistent response to infliximab and low rates of colectomy at up to 4 years after starting treatment. Patient experts indicated that the risk of colon cancer increases after 8 to 10 years of active disease and that TNF-alpha inhibitors may decrease it. Statements from patients with ulcerative colitis suggested that infliximab is an effective treatment that prevented symptoms from recurring and helped patients maintain a good health state for long periods, although it caused reactions in some patients when first taken. Comments from professional groups stated that, while the clinical evidence base is smaller for adalimumab and golimumab than for infliximab, there are high-quality data with broadly Page 21 of
similar results to infliximab for both treatments. Patient experts stated that although TNF-alpha inhibitors are relatively expensive, they reduce the costs of other services, which may offset the high drug costs in the long term. 4.28 Comments from professional groups noted that NICE guidance on TNF-alpha-inhibitor therapy differs for Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis, resulting in TNF-alpha inhibitors being widely available for Crohn's disease but not for ulcerative colitis. The comments indicated that ulcerative colitis shares common genetic factors with Crohn's disease, with the 2 conditions overlapping in some aspects, which sometimes makes them clinically indistinguishable. In addition, both diseases can be associated with chronic active symptoms that do not respond to conventional therapy. The comments summarised that the benefit of TNF-alpha inhibitors for ulcerative colitis is likely to be similar to that for Crohn's disease, and so guidance for these 2 conditions should also be similar. 4.29 Clinical experts stated that outcomes should include rates of corticosteroid-free remission. They also advised that treatment goals beyond symptom control and improved quality of life are important, such as complete mucosal healing and reduced complication rates. Long-term corticosteroid use is associated with increased risk of health problems such as hypertension, diabetes and osteoporosis, so reducing the dose of corticosteroids is a desirable goal in the management of ulcerative colitis. Patients who had infliximab explained that some of the side effects of corticosteroids, notably rounded face and severe acne, can lower self-esteem. Patients stated that TNF-alpha inhibitors can help overcome these problems because they allow the patient to reduce the dose of corticosteroids. Cost effectiveness 4.30 The Assessment Group's systematic review of the cost-effectiveness evidence identified 3 published economic evaluations of TNF-alpha inhibitors for ulcerative colitis. However, the Assessment Group did not consider any of these evaluations to provide sufficient evidence on the cost effectiveness of TNF-alpha inhibitors from a UK perspective. This was mainly because the models did not accurately reflect the natural history of the disease, made questionable assumptions about the relative effectiveness of TNF-alpha inhibitors and used short time horizons. Page 22 of
Company's model: adalimumab 4.31 The company's analysis compared the cost effectiveness of adalimumab plus conventional therapy with conventional therapy alone for moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis that had responded inadequately to conventional therapy. The population in the base case comprised both patients who had been treated before with a TNF-alpha inhibitor other than adalimumab and also those who had not. The company also presented a sensitivity analysis in which it modelled only patients who had not previously had a TNF-alpha inhibitor. The analysis estimated the direct healthcare costs to the NHS and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) over a 10 year time horizon using a cycle length of 2 weeks. 4.32 The company used a Markov model simulating 8 states: 3 states before surgery ('remission', 'mild', and 'moderate-to-severe'), 1 'surgery' state, and 4 states after surgery ('post-surgery without complication', 'transient complication', 'chronic complication', and 'surgery-related death'). The company derived the probabilities of patients moving between states before surgery primarily from ULTRA2 and the extension study ULTRA3. It derived the transition probabilities for the surgery and post-surgery states based on published literature. 4.33 The company assigned a utility value to each state in the model. ULTRA2 collected health-related quality of life data using the Short Form-36 (SF-36) survey but the company did not transform these data to SF-6D, arguing that this may overestimate the utility value for patients who had severe disease in ULTRA2. Instead, it obtained the utility values for the states before surgery from a study by Swinburn et al. and those for the states after surgery mainly from a study by Tsai et al. The model included costs associated with: the drug, disease state, hospitalisation, surgery, complications after surgery, and surgery-related death. All costs were derived from published literature. 4.34 The base-case ICER for adalimumab plus conventional therapy compared with conventional therapy alone was 34,417 per QALY gained. When the company varied the key parameters in the model 1 at a time, ICERs ranged from 29,437 to 38,073 per QALY gained. The probability of adalimumab plus conventional therapy being cost-effective compared with conventional therapy alone, at a maximum acceptable ICER of 30,000 per QALY gained, was 30%. In the sensitivity analysis relating to patients who had not been treated before with a Page 23 of
TNF-alpha inhibitor, the ICER for adalimumab plus conventional therapy was close to the base-case ICER at 35,970 per QALY gained. 4.35 The Assessment Group critiqued the company's decision problem and stated that the company having excluded other TNF-alpha inhibitors (golimumab and infliximab) and surgery as comparators deviated from the final scope. In addition, it stated that the company used a shorter cycle length than the time point for assessing induction in ULTRA2 (6 weeks); did not transform the data collected in ULTRA2 using SF-36 to SF-6D utility values; assumed that surgery improves the utility score by only 0.06 compared with active disease; and modelled the rate at which patients had surgery based on a questionable study. In response to the Assessment Group's critique, the company revised its model by using a lifetime time horizon, including a general population mortality which is the same as that used by the Assessment Group, deriving the efficacy of adalimumab from the TNF-alpha-inhibitor-naïve subgroup in ULTRA2 and ULTRA3, using a rate of surgery that reflects the average rates in 4 studies, and applying the same stopping rule for adalimumab after year 2 as the Assessment Group. The ICER for adalimumab plus conventional therapy compared with conventional therapy alone from the revised model was 23,027 per QALY gained. This analysis, however, was not critiqued by the Assessment Group. Company's model: golimumab and infliximab 4.36 The company's model compared adalimumab, golimumab and infliximab with each other and with colectomy for moderate to severe ulcerative colitis that had failed previous treatment. Conventional therapy was not a comparator in the analysis. The company chose a cycle length of 2 months and a 10 year time horizon. The perspective on costs was that of the NHS. Costs and health effects were discounted at an annual rate of 3.5%. 4.37 The company's model was hybrid in that it used a 'decision tree' to model the probabilities of TNF-alpha inhibitors inducing a clinical response or remission, and the probabilities of surviving and of having surgery-related complications after colectomy; then a Markov model (simulating 11 states) to estimate the long-term outcomes of maintenance therapy and colectomy. If patients had responding or remitting disease at the end of induction therapy, they had maintenance therapy. Patients whose disease did not respond to induction therapy, and those in whom previous response was lost during maintenance Page 24 of
therapy, had intravenous corticosteroids. They could then continue on corticosteroids or have colectomy. The probabilities of patients moving between states in the induction and maintenance phases were based on network meta-analyses conducted by the manufacturer. 4.38 Costs and utility values were attached to each state. The model incorporated the patient access scheme for golimumab. Utility values were based on PURSUIT-SC in the golimumab model and on ACT1 in the infliximab model. Golimumab and infliximab were assumed to be administered at the licensed dose. For adalimumab, the company used the licensed induction dose regimen of 160 mg at week 0 and 80 mg at week 2, but after induction it assumed that 50% of patients have the licensed initial maintenance dose of 40 mg every other week while the other 50% have 40 mg every week. The company stated that this was because 22.9% of patients in the ULTRA2 trial had 40 mg every week instead of every other week. However, it also stated that, based on clinical advice, up to 80% of patients would have weekly doses in clinical practice. The company assumed that in each treatment group some patients also have background conventional therapy. 4.39 The company presented the cost-effectiveness results as pairwise ICERs (that is, ICERs comparing technologies head-to-head rather than incrementally from the least costly to the most costly). It reported ICERs of 27,994 per QALY gained for golimumab compared with colectomy, and 80,318 saved per QALY lost for golimumab compared with infliximab; compared with adalimumab, golimumab was more effective and less expensive. For infliximab, the ICERs were 38,307 per QALY gained compared with colectomy, 54,564 per QALY gained compared with adalimumab, and 75,998 per QALY gained compared with golimumab. 4.40 The Assessment Group critiqued the models for golimumab and infliximab together because they were submitted by the same company and were identical. It stated that the company's analysis was generally in line with the NICE reference case, but deviated from the final scope in that conventional therapy was not included as a comparator. Furthermore, it stated that the company having assumed that patients can only have corticosteroids or colectomy after TNF-alpha-inhibitor therapy fails modelled a treatment pathway associated with severe disease, not moderate to severe disease for which further medical treatment would still be considered. The Assessment Page 25 of